REPEATS…REPEATS…REPEATS

In the Renaissance Period in France, Catherine de Medici ruled as Regent after the untimely death of her eldest son Francis II in 1560, ( the first husband of Mary Queen of Scots).

The State treasury was depleted by the wars led by the previous monarch, Francis I, Catherine’s husband. Financial matters had not been addressed during her ailing son’s short reign. The State was bankrupt and monies had to be found

Does any of this sound familiar……it should.

To continue:

As other sources of revenue-raising were unavailable at that point, it was suggested that taxes be levied, the burden of which, would fall on the peasantry. There were at best, unimaginative suggestions from the Estates Deputies. It was left to the Crown therefore, to lead by pruning its expenditure. Catherine cut the number of servants and other elements of the administrative workforce, reduced salaries and pensions. By so doing, she recouped 2.3 million livres.

Remember, this is the 16th century. That’s an awful lot of money recouped, say, billions in today’s financial terms.

Rather than being congratulatory, the Deputies observed that if such an amount could be so easily saved, ‘Could not more telling cuts be made?

:**: History repeats, repeats, repeats……………………. and continues to be repeated.

Source:Frieda.L. 2005 Catherine de Medici: p171.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “REPEATS…REPEATS…REPEATS

  1. Hummm… I prefer the story of Henry IV, who protected the borders by customs taxes and invests in state factories. He so got some job to everyone and the famine stopped…

  2. I am sure you prefer the story of Henry 1V – today, it would be called protectionism.

    However, what we have today here in the UK, other parts of Europe and in all likelihood USA and Japan, is a similar range of thinking and budgetary ideas to that of Catherine de Medici. There is a variation of reasons how we got into the current financial deficit, but the budgetary calculations will be very similar to those that Catherine had to think about.

    I do not know what the manufacturing and political structures of France were at Catherine’s time, certainly not the same as in the time of Henry IV. What Henri did, may not have been possible politically and practically in 1560.

  3. Yes, sure ! Protectionism ! It’s the best system for people ! But the worst for alittle few ultra liberals…

    The liberalism must be eradicated, otherwise the world will die…

    It is so simple as it…

  4. I think it’s possible… Because taxes should be made according to the value of the change, the standard of living and socialization of exporter countries.
    For example: China 500 % tax, Germany 0 % tax…

  5. Many years ago when I visited France, many consumer items were terribly expensive because of your impot. French people would travel and buy cheaper elsewhere.

    In a global market, with global finance structures, it is not possible to use isolationist and totally selfish tactics, not without a war. The management of the problem must be much more intelligent than that.

  6. It is what they try to persuade us…

    But before there were customs taxes and that was very well… It is the profiteers who instiled the idea “to free” the economy, in their only profit…

    And since they sing us the mass, we eventually believe consider in it… But I know another society is possible, with a capitalism with a capitalism regulated by laws and checked to evoid excess…

  7. We have many taxes because all which comes from China, is not taxed, because it created many unemployed persons to indemnify and few workers to pay.

    5 million French look for a job… And there is not !

    The history of France and of the world gives me reason… Kings who made this politics deleted the poverty and also the wars during their reign…

    Every country has to try to be enough in itself. It has to buy outside that what he does not know how to obtain at its… Bananas, coffee, oranges, oil… The world would live better… What do USA, Japanese and Chinese, isn’t it protectionism?…

    Instead of plundering Africa and trying to make it with Afghanistan (but we shall not success there), we should help them to develop for them, for their needs…

    But the problem is: What are going to become our “poor” profiteers and speculators?… Personally I don’t care : they will have only to work…

  8. We all have the same millions of unemployed people. When people cannot buy things because they have little or no money then countries like China will not do so much business. Your desire will be given to you by these manoeuvres.

    Afghanistan in a lost cause. The problem is, it and its insurgents are too close to a nuclear power and its nuclear power stations.

  9. Problem is really Pakistan…

    But to speak about the protectionism… Dos Great Britain not make as China ?.. The devaluation of its change ? (Indeed, imported oil is more expensive, but does not it constitute a shape of protectionisme to outbid the imported products and make competitive your products?

    France often made it before the Euro… That is why, I would wish that we leave the Euro, to be able to devalue as much it seems to us…

  10. All countries are now imposing restrictions on spending by reducing salaries, no pay rises or only very little ones. This will make people do less shopping for consumer goods. This is how many countries will now control spending on imports. It will affect imports and exports.

  11. Ce n’est pas la bonne solution, car cela provoque la dĂ©flation et la rĂ©cession… On achète moins de produits Ă©trangers, mais on achète aussi moins de produits ou de services nationaux…

  12. D’accord, mais je pense que il n y a pas le volontĂ© politique de faire autres choses plus originales, ou plus provocatif dans le theatre internationale.

  13. Exactly !
    Returning on Afghanistan, I made consultant’s mission in training(formation), for the Ministry of Defence two years ago…

    Over there, I learnt many things concerning the incredible unexploited resources of this country.

    27 billion cubic meters of gas only in the northwest. Coal, oil, iron, copper, any metals, gold, precious stones…

    Why had the Russians invaded this country ? Why did the USA help the Talibans against the Russians ? Why the western allies are over there at the moment ?

    Only for these resources… Burqa, Charia, Ben Laden, Freedom for Afghan people are very good pretexts to occupation…

  14. Tu as raison. Mais, il y a une autre difficulte maintenant. Pakistan et Afghanistan appartiene des bordres, et Pakistan as le puissance nucleaire et l’abilite de faire la bombe.

  15. C’est bien pour cela que je dis que c’est le Pakistan le danger actuel…

    Le Pakistan fait semblant d’aider les US dans la chasse aux terroristes au Pakistan, mais donne des armes aux talibans d’Afghanistan… Et 30 % au moins des armes et munitions envoyĂ©es par les US finissent dans les mains des Talibans.
    25% des troupes Afghanes que nous entrainons, passent dans les Talibans…
    La guerre en Afghanistan sera sans fin…
    Et les alliĂ©s partiront, (comme pour le Vietnam)…

    Plus nous restons, plus nous favorisons les thèses de Ben Laden…

  16. Bien sur il sera une retraite des les armées, mais, quand et en quelle forme? Maintenant, nous attendons et voir.

    Il y a toujour le danger du facilitĂ© nucleaire, il faut q’en lui n’oublier pas. J’ecoute de la rapprochement avec l’Inde, une pay aussie avec l’option nucleaire, la voisine de Pakistan. Ce ci cette un point de peut grave.

    Par mon avis,le Taliban ils n’auras pas l’intellect mais aussie ni rien peut. Le communitĂ© internationale as raison de mantien le prudence, si non la guerre, de proteger nous d’une holocauste nucleaire.

  17. Il n’y a rien pour protĂ©ger de cela… Seulement le jeu des alliances, une forte prĂ©sence de sous-marins nuclĂ©aire occidentaux dans l’ocĂ©an indien et surtout des missiles anti-missiles…

  18. Oui, tous cela, comme tu dit, mais notre gouvernement ils ont des plans de coupé tout notre armes et aussie les armes nucleaire pour combattee nos majeur deficit des finances, ont dit. Donc, qui est ce que la choix plus importante ici?

    Ou est la balance de pouvoir, ou il sera….

  19. VoilĂ  la grande idiotie du libĂ©ralisme… Qui place l’argent plus haut que tout, y compris que la sĂ©curitĂ© des peuples… Nous sommes dans une guerre Ă©conomique que nous perdons, parce que l’on ne veut pas faire ce qui est nĂ©cessaire pour nous dĂ©fendre…

    La prochaine Ă©tape, c’est la vrai guerre, oĂą on ira dĂ©sarmĂ©, sans espoir de vaincre…

    RĂ©signation d’un occident dĂ©cadent et sans caractère…

  20. I do not see this as a liberal idiocy. The use of money by elites and governments to control societies is an ancient device. It is what the money has been spent on that is the concern of all of us.

    Man has an innate aggression, power is the driver. Controlling the power is what we are always doing, what the innate aggression forces us to do. As the world has become more educated, the forces of man’s nature have become more dangerous. If it is not control by money and what money can buy, other controls would be applied.

    What we have, we have, we therefore have to think intelligently how to control it all and maintain the support of the people (another form of control) who pay for all of it.

Thanks for visiting me. Please share your thoughts and ideas. Comment here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s